38 results for 'judge:"Tostrud"'.
J. Tostrud partially grants the department of human service's motion to dismiss the civilly-committed criminal defendants' suit alleging failures to keep to deadlines for treatment placement of defendants. Fourteenth and Fourth-Amendment substantive due process claims, along with negligence, false imprisonment, and infliction of emotional distress claims and a request for a writ of mandamus, are dismissed. Procedural due process claims under the Fourteenth Amendment and the Minnesota Constitution survive.
Court: USDC Minnesota, Judge: Tostrud, Filed On: September 14, 2023, Case #: 0:23cv355, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: Civil Rights, Prisoners' Rights
J. Tostrud partially grants the bank and its attorneys' motion to dismiss the consumers' suit alleging an unlawful mortgage foreclosure. A breach-of-contract claim fails because it relies on implausible interpretations of the parties' contract, and a Truth in Lending Act claim fails since the consumers have not plausibly alleged that the bank failed to credit a payment to a loan account as of the date of receipt, but rather that they refunded the payments after receiving them. The harms alleged therefore stem from the foreclosure, rather than conduct that would fall under the Truth in Lending Act. Fair Debt Collection Practices Act claims largely survive since the documents supporting the motion to dismiss them are not embraced by the pleadings and so cannot be considered for the purposes of this motion.
Court: USDC Minnesota, Judge: Tostrud, Filed On: September 11, 2023, Case #: 0:22cv3056, NOS: Truth in Lending - Torts - Personal Property, Categories: Civil Procedure, Consumer Law, Banking / Lending
J. Tostrud partially grants the employer and its fiduciary investment committee and directors' motion to dismiss the former employees' suit alleging that the employer's 401(k) and profit-sharing plan was mismanaged. Claims relating to allegedly excessive recordkeeping expenses and management fees and to underperforming funds are dismissed, along with a breach of duty of loyalty claim. Claims derived from allegations that the plan's fiduciaries invested in unnecessarily expensive share classes survive, as does one that alleges that the employer and its board failed to monitor the performance of the plan committee.
Court: USDC Minnesota, Judge: Tostrud, Filed On: August 21, 2023, Case #: 0:22cv415, NOS: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) - Labor, Categories: Erisa, Fiduciary Duty
J. Tostrud grants the Holy See's motion to dismiss the clergy sexual abuse victims' suit against it for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The victims have not plausibly alleged that they face any threat of future injury from the Holy See, and so have not established Article III standing for most of their claims. The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act's exceptions for tort claims and actions based upon "a commercial activity carried on in the United States by the foreign state" also do not apply to the victims' remaining claims.
Court: USDC Minnesota, Judge: Tostrud, Filed On: July 14, 2023, Case #: 0:19cv1272, NOS: Other Personal Injury - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: Jurisdiction, Injunction
J. Tostrud grants the insurer's motion to dismiss claims brought against it by the insured seeking coverage for a fire at the insured's apartment building. The policy at issue in this motion, part of a suit against the building's four different insurers, includes a forum-selection provision requiring that claims against the insurer be brought in New York state courts. The policy also is not a contract of adhesion under Minnesota law.
Court: USDC Minnesota, Judge: Tostrud, Filed On: July 11, 2023, Case #: 0:23cv218, NOS: Insurance - Contract, Categories: Insurance, Jurisdiction, Contract
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Tostrud grants summary judgment to the college, dismissing the former student's complaint and partially granting the college's motion to exclude expert testimony. Were the case tried, the student's psychological expert's testimony regarding the student's mental health would be admissible, but another psychologist's opinions regarding administrators' handling of the Title IX complaint process would not, nor would the first psychologist's opinions that the college was "grossly insensitive" to the student's bipolar disorder and autism throughout the process and related conclusions. In light of these exclusions, there remains no trial-worthy evidentiary support for the student's sex and disability discrimination claims.
Court: USDC Minnesota, Judge: Tostrud, Filed On: July 5, 2023, Case #: 0:21cv1576, NOS: Education - Civil Rights, Categories: Civil Rights, Ada / Rehabilitation Act, Education
J. Tostrud denies the embassy's armed forces office's motion to dismiss the hospital operator's suit against it alleging nonpayment of medical bills for the children of an armed forces member. The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act does not preclude the hospital operator's claims since it has plausibly alleged that contracts with the office's agent constituted contracts with the office itself. A covenant in those agreements providing that the hospital operator would not "file arbitration or suit with regards to this bill" refers to the original amount due, not the discounted amount that the parties agreed to settle the bills for in those agreements. A failure to join the agent and the hospital operator's former billing intermediary is also not fatal to the operator's claims since neither is a required party.
Court: USDC Minnesota, Judge: Tostrud, Filed On: June 27, 2023, Case #: 0:21cv2666, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: International Law, Contract
J. Tostrud denies the chicken processor's motion for summary judgment in its suit seeking a finding that Minnesota statutes and rules establishing parent-organization liability for the unmet obligations of their subsidiaries under certain agricultural contracts are not applicable to its contracts with Minnesota chicken growers. He grants the growers' motion for summary judgment. A choice-of-law clause does not not bind the processor to Minnesota law on its own, but Minnesota's choice-of-law principles otherwise favor applying Minnesota law to the growers' claims against the processor. Minnesota's parent-liability rules and statutes also do not violate the dormant Commerce Clause. The laws and rules therefore apply. The growers' motion for leave to amend their counterclaims is denied, since the proposed amendments are largely unnecessary in light of this and other orders.
Court: USDC Minnesota, Judge: Tostrud, Filed On: June 6, 2023, Case #: 0:19cv3040, NOS: Constitutionality of State Statutes - Other Suits, Categories: Commerce, Choice Of Law, Contract